As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.
Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag. I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.
Trump's education "policy" (it's no such thing) is basically, lies, stoking hatred. "...You know, they take your kid. There are some places, your boy leaves the school, comes back a girl. Without parental consent. What is that all about?".."
They don't.
I have a transgender child. Trump is evil, IMO.
Well said. The guy is absolute garbage, I'm weary of the pussyfooting around that undeniable fact.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
SSI - Appears that what's putting the Yes side in the lead, is strong support from voters in Chișinău, the capital (23.4% of national vote) and where Da = 56.0%
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
I have not read the article. Are they looking at the equity part of peoples properties?
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.
Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag. I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.
Trump's education "policy" (it's no such thing) is basically, lies, stoking hatred. "...You know, they take your kid. There are some places, your boy leaves the school, comes back a girl. Without parental consent. What is that all about?".."
They don't.
I have a transgender child. Trump is evil, IMO.
Well said. The guy is absolute garbage, I'm weary of the pussyfooting around that undeniable fact.
I'd largely agree with that statement, but I don't think all his supporters.
I met a charming Greek-American and Irish-American Trumpy couple in Greece, as I mentioned a few weeks back.
Both softly-spoken, nice anf reasonably educated, if a bit bourgeois, engineers, who thought they had to save the world with voting for Trump.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
I have not read the article. Are they looking at the equity part of peoples properties?
Sounds like a bargain at double the price, this is further proof that society values lawyers.
Elite lawyers raise fees 40pc to £449 per hour amid ballooning costs
PwC survey shows firms are increasing number of billable hours amid rebound in deal-making
Britain’s biggest law firms are charging their clients 40pc more an hour compared to five years ago as they pass on higher costs to customers, a new report has found.
According to PwC’s annual law firm survey published on Monday, the 10 largest UK-headquartered firms by revenue raised fees to £449 per hour in 2024 – up from £321 in 2019.
These firms also increased the number of billable hours that all lawyers, from trainee to partner, charged clients amid a rebound in deal-making and an active litigation market.
The rise in hourly rates has helped the elite group grow fee income by a record 11.6pc and absorb higher inflationary costs by passing them on to clients.
This includes higher pay for lawyers because of increased competition from US rivals in London, forcing UK law firms to hike salaries to attract and retain talent.
The talent war has seen Britain’s largest law firms, known as the “magic circle”, raise salaries this year for newly qualified solicitors to £150,000 – up 20pc from the prior year.
SSI - Appears that what's putting the Yes side in the lead, is strong support from voters in Chișinău, the capital (23.4% of national vote) and where Da = 56.0%
That and expats - No was winning until the 'overseas' ballots got going.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
Digging into this, it does say "Preserved pension wealth comprises preserved occupational defined benefit pensions" so I'm guessing that they are making some sort of estimate around DB pension holders' future benefits even though they are not at retirement age yet? Only way I can make sense of that extraordinary claim.
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
"The voters I had been sent to talk to were, alarmingly, registered independents, notionally open to persuasion. Every one of them was voting for Trump, either because his message broadly matched their pious, patriotic principles, or because they found Harris unconvincing: a weak candidate with a weak record and weak messages, wildly over-promoted, boosted by a fawning liberal media and a sinister, duplicitous, left-wing Democratic political machine. Highlighting Trump’s reprehensibility works poorly with these voters; it implies they are wicked for even considering him."
Edward Lucas in Times (canvassing on the street in PA).
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
I have not read the article. Are they looking at the equity part of peoples properties?
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
I have not read the article. Are they looking at the equity part of peoples properties?
No. That's pension pots.
The tax-free lump sum always struck me as anomalous and Uncle Sam agrees because any Usonian retiring in the UK is expected to declare it on their US tax return and shell out to the IRS as if it were income. But just because I think it's anomalous doesn't mean I wouldn't resent losing it.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
I have not read the article. Are they looking at the equity part of peoples properties?
No. That's pension pots.
The tax-free lump sum always struck me as anomalous and Uncle Sam agrees because any Usonian retiring in the UK is expected to declare it on their US tax return and shell out to the IRS as if it were income. But just because I think it's anomalous doesn't mean I wouldn't resent losing it.
I think the point is that if you have paid into the scheme over x years expecting the tax free lump sum, then rightly you expect to get it.
Change it moving forward - fine. But whats done ought to be done.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
I have not read the article. Are they looking at the equity part of peoples properties?
No. That's pension pots.
The tax-free lump sum always struck me as anomalous and Uncle Sam agrees because any Usonian retiring in the UK is expected to declare it on their US tax return and shell out to the IRS as if it were income. But just because I think it's anomalous doesn't mean I wouldn't resent losing it.
I think the point is that if you have paid into the scheme over x years expecting the tax free lump sum, then rightly you expect to get it.
Change it moving forward - fine. But whats done ought to be done.
It's not as simple as changing it moving forward - DB schemes' tax free lump sum is a function of years of service and pensionable salary not pension pot size.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
Digging into this, it does say "Preserved pension wealth comprises preserved occupational defined benefit pensions" so I'm guessing that they are making some sort of estimate around DB pension holders' future benefits even though they are not at retirement age yet? Only way I can make sense of that extraordinary claim.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
I have not read the article. Are they looking at the equity part of peoples properties?
No. That's pension pots.
The tax-free lump sum always struck me as anomalous and Uncle Sam agrees because any Usonian retiring in the UK is expected to declare it on their US tax return and shell out to the IRS as if it were income. But just because I think it's anomalous doesn't mean I wouldn't resent losing it.
I think the point is that if you have paid into the scheme over x years expecting the tax free lump sum, then rightly you expect to get it.
Change it moving forward - fine. But whats done ought to be done.
But that means the new Labour policy would bear down on the middle-aged, not the elderly. And so would a hike in IHT. Some of the elder-abusers here and elsewhere will not be happy.
"The voters I had been sent to talk to were, alarmingly, registered independents, notionally open to persuasion. Every one of them was voting for Trump, either because his message broadly matched their pious, patriotic principles, or because they found Harris unconvincing: a weak candidate with a weak record and weak messages, wildly over-promoted, boosted by a fawning liberal media and a sinister, duplicitous, left-wing Democratic political machine. Highlighting Trump’s reprehensibility works poorly with these voters; it implies they are wicked for even considering him."
Edward Lucas in Times (canvassing on the street in PA).
This covers two of the things I've been mentioning in the last couple of days ; he has the narrative of "goodness" covered, and on the other side he thrives on animosity and ostracism, and is a lightning-rod for pushing boundaries.
It's hard to combat this combination, but the Democrats can do more. Harris can at timrs actually be.a genuinely magnetic personality, on her best days that I've seen, during the campaign.
I'll pass on reading the Twitter reaction to this verdict.
Question for the Hive Mind
If my reaction to the verdict is Community Restorative Shopping, is getting a friend to help me carry a large TV through the shattered window at Rucher Sounds
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
Digging into this, it does say "Preserved pension wealth comprises preserved occupational defined benefit pensions" so I'm guessing that they are making some sort of estimate around DB pension holders' future benefits even though they are not at retirement age yet? Only way I can make sense of that extraordinary claim.
Looking at it this way, - I think - about 15 million people are aged between 50-65 and it's a fair assumption that the vast majority of individuals with £1m plus pension pots (be they DC or DB) fall within that age range. Claiming that 1.1m people (over 1 in 15) of the population within that cohort have over £1m pension pot is absurd on its face. So something is awry somewhere.
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.
Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag. I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.
Trump's education "policy" (it's no such thing) is basically, lies, stoking hatred. "...You know, they take your kid. There are some places, your boy leaves the school, comes back a girl. Without parental consent. What is that all about?".."
They don't.
I have a transgender child. Trump is evil, IMO.
Well said. The guy is absolute garbage, I'm weary of the pussyfooting around that undeniable fact.
I'd largely agree with that statement, but I don't think all his supporters.
I met a charming Greek-American and Irish-American Trumpy couple in Greece, as I mentioned a few weeks back.
Both softly-spoken, nice anf reasonably educated, if a bit bourgeois, engineers, who thought they had to save the world with voting for Trump.
Ah but, per the header, did you sleep with them have a lower opinion of them after learning their political views?
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
Digging into this, it does say "Preserved pension wealth comprises preserved occupational defined benefit pensions" so I'm guessing that they are making some sort of estimate around DB pension holders' future benefits even though they are not at retirement age yet? Only way I can make sense of that extraordinary claim.
Looking at it this way, - I think - about 15 million people are aged between 50-65 and it's a fair assumption that the vast majority of individuals with £1m plus pension pots (be they DC or DB) fall within that age range. Claiming that 1.1m people (over 1 in 15) of the population within that cohort have over £1m pension pot is absurd on its face. So something is awry somewhere.
Why 50-65? Could be any change, probably more 60-75 than 50-65.
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.
Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag. I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.
Trump's education "policy" (it's no such thing) is basically, lies, stoking hatred. "...You know, they take your kid. There are some places, your boy leaves the school, comes back a girl. Without parental consent. What is that all about?".."
They don't.
I have a transgender child. Trump is evil, IMO.
Well said. The guy is absolute garbage, I'm weary of the pussyfooting around that undeniable fact.
I'd largely agree with that statement, but I don't think all his supporters.
I met a charming Greek-American and Irish-American Trumpy couple in Greece, as I mentioned a few weeks back.
Both softly-spoken, nice anf reasonably educated, if a bit bourgeois, engineers, who thought they had to save the world with voting for Trump.
No I do mean him. There will be lots of decent people voting for him. Bound to be amongst the 70m or whatever he polls.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
Digging into this, it does say "Preserved pension wealth comprises preserved occupational defined benefit pensions" so I'm guessing that they are making some sort of estimate around DB pension holders' future benefits even though they are not at retirement age yet? Only way I can make sense of that extraordinary claim.
Looking at it this way, - I think - about 15 million people are aged between 50-65 and it's a fair assumption that the vast majority of individuals with £1m plus pension pots (be they DC or DB) fall within that age range. Claiming that 1.1m people (over 1 in 15) of the population within that cohort have over £1m pension pot is absurd on its face. So something is awry somewhere.
Why 50-65? Could be any change, probably more 60-75 than 50-65.
Ok 60-75 then. Still about 15 mill people. My point is it's obviously wrong so I think they must be including those with prospective benefits using some assumptions rather than built-up? Dunno.
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
Digging into this, it does say "Preserved pension wealth comprises preserved occupational defined benefit pensions" so I'm guessing that they are making some sort of estimate around DB pension holders' future benefits even though they are not at retirement age yet? Only way I can make sense of that extraordinary claim.
Looking at it this way, - I think - about 15 million people are aged between 50-65 and it's a fair assumption that the vast majority of individuals with £1m plus pension pots (be they DC or DB) fall within that age range. Claiming that 1.1m people (over 1 in 15) of the population within that cohort have over £1m pension pot is absurd on its face. So something is awry somewhere.
Lots of people with £1m pension pots will be over 65.
To add to the excitement, today there's a provincial election in New Brunswick, just 2 days after the election in British Columbia.
"Excitement" and "New Brunswick" do not belong in the same sentence.
Of all the people on this board who have been to New Brunswick, I contend that I have been for the shortest time. I was driving from Charlottetown PEI to Halifax NS almost exactly 19 years ago, and spent about 45 minutes in NB, including time the time it took to look back at the bridge and to buy a coffee and a snack. I can remember nothing at all about it. Nothing. I have a pretty good memory, and visiting a new province should normally trigger something, but all I have is a void.
On the Kaba case - I remember being somewhat surprised at the time that there was a murder charge based on media reports. Doesn't murder require pre-meditation? Wouldn't manslaughter have been a more obvious charge in this case?
. . . . Progressive Conservative Leader Blaine Higgs is hoping to win a third term in office, which would make him the first premier to pull that off since Liberal Frank McKenna's victory in 1995.
Higgs has promised to continue the same approach to governing he has used for the last six years, which has led to six consecutive budget surpluses. He made only one major promise during the campaign: a two-point reduction to the 15-per-cent harmonized sales tax rate, phased in over the next two years.
Liberal Leader Susan Holt hopes to lead her party back to power after six years on the opposition benches. She built her campaign around a commitment to address problems in the health-care system and help New Brunswickers with the high cost of living.
And the Green Party, seemingly entrenched as the province's third party on the left of the political spectrum, aims to re-elect its three MLAs who first won in 2018 and secured new terms in 2020. The NDP, the People's Alliance and the Libertarian parties also have candidates on the ballot in some ridings.
On the Kaba case - I remember being somewhat surprised at the time that there was a murder charge based on media reports. Doesn't murder require pre-meditation? Wouldn't manslaughter have been a more obvious charge in this case?
The officer could still have to face a gross misconduct hearing which could result in him being sacked.
. . . . Progressive Conservative Leader Blaine Higgs is hoping to win a third term in office, which would make him the first premier to pull that off since Liberal Frank McKenna's victory in 1995.
Higgs has promised to continue the same approach to governing he has used for the last six years, which has led to six consecutive budget surpluses. He made only one major promise during the campaign: a two-point reduction to the 15-per-cent harmonized sales tax rate, phased in over the next two years.
Liberal Leader Susan Holt hopes to lead her party back to power after six years on the opposition benches. She built her campaign around a commitment to address problems in the health-care system and help New Brunswickers with the high cost of living.
And the Green Party, seemingly entrenched as the province's third party on the left of the political spectrum, aims to re-elect its three MLAs who first won in 2018 and secured new terms in 2020. The NDP, the People's Alliance and the Libertarian parties also have candidates on the ballot in some ridings.
On the Kaba case - I remember being somewhat surprised at the time that there was a murder charge based on media reports. Doesn't murder require pre-meditation? Wouldn't manslaughter have been a more obvious charge in this case?
The officer could still have to face a gross misconduct hearing which could result in him being sacked.
I can't see it. The jury believed his explanation, so why shouldn't that be it?
I wonder when the IOPC / CPS are finally going to get around to the Manchester Airport case? Its been months now. There were a million CCTV cameras, surely must have an idea who did what when.
I wonder when the CPS are finally going to get around to the Manchester Airport case? Its been months now. There were a million CCTV cameras, surely must have an idea who did what when.
I'm guessing that nothing can happen until they've decided what to do with the coppers. I assume everything needs deciding together.
I wonder when the CPS are finally going to get around to the Manchester Airport case? Its been months now. There were a million CCTV cameras, surely must have an idea who did what when.
I'm guessing that nothing can happen until they've decided what to do with the coppers. I assume everything needs deciding together.
That is what I meant (I have edited my original post to clarify with IOPC).
To add to the excitement, today there's a provincial election in New Brunswick, just 2 days after the election in British Columbia.
"Excitement" and "New Brunswick" do not belong in the same sentence.
Of all the people on this board who have been to New Brunswick, I contend that I have been for the shortest time. I was driving from Charlottetown PEI to Halifax NS almost exactly 19 years ago, and spent about 45 minutes in NB, including time the time it took to look back at the bridge and to buy a coffee and a snack. I can remember nothing at all about it. Nothing. I have a pretty good memory, and visiting a new province should normally trigger something, but all I have is a void.
You recall gazing at the bridge and buying food & drink . . . yet simultaneously claim to "remember nothing"?
On the Kaba case - I remember being somewhat surprised at the time that there was a murder charge based on media reports. Doesn't murder require pre-meditation? Wouldn't manslaughter have been a more obvious charge in this case?
The officer could still have to face a gross misconduct hearing which could result in him being sacked.
I can't see it. The jury believed his explanation, so why shouldn't that be it?
Making senior officers a bit uncomfortable at press conferences is Gross Misconduct.
Obviously.
The same kind of senior officer, who, when a terrorist was stabbing a policeman to death in front of them, heroically locked the doors on his chauffeur driven car. Said senior police officer justified this by saying he wasn’t wearing his body armour. Said senior police officer used to reprimand police officers for not wearing their body armour in police station offices…
When he retired, a little while later, an angry email was sent out to officers about the lack of enthusiasm at his goodbye party….
On the Kaba case - I remember being somewhat surprised at the time that there was a murder charge based on media reports. Doesn't murder require pre-meditation? Wouldn't manslaughter have been a more obvious charge in this case?
The officer could still have to face a gross misconduct hearing which could result in him being sacked.
I can't see it. The jury believed his explanation, so why shouldn't that be it?
You say that but remember this case. Again it seems fairly open and shut, violent criminals were going to break out prisoners, but 8 years on, no criminal charges against the officer, the public inquiry said it was legal, and yet...
A police marksman who shot dead a gangster eight years ago will face a gross misconduct hearing “at the earliest opportunity”, Scotland Yard has confirmed.
The Metropolitan Police firearms officer, known only as W80, could be sacked over the incident, despite being cleared of criminal wrongdoing.
In December 2015, W80 shot 28-year-old Jermaine Baker during a police operation as he was preparing to spring two prisoners from a prison van near Wood Green Crown Court in north London.
In 2017, prosecutors concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the officer.
A public inquiry in July 2022 found that Baker had been “lawfully killed” but said that police made numerous failures in planning and carrying out the operation.
The recombinant shingles vaccine is associated with lower risk of dementia https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03201-5 There is emerging evidence that the live herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine might protect against dementia. However, the existing data are limited and refer only to the live vaccine, which is now discontinued in the United States and many other countries in favor of a recombinant vaccine. Whether the recombinant shingles vaccine protects against dementia remains unknown. Here we used a natural experiment opportunity created by the rapid transition from the use of live to the use of recombinant vaccines to compare the risk of dementia between vaccine types. We show that the recombinant vaccine is associated with a significantly lower risk of dementia in the 6 years post-vaccination. Specifically, receiving the recombinant vaccine is associated with a 17% increase in diagnosis-free time, translating into 164 additional days lived without a diagnosis of dementia in those subsequently affected. The recombinant shingles vaccine was also associated with lower risks of dementia than were two other vaccines commonly used in older people: influenza and tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis vaccines. The effect was robust across multiple secondary analyses, and was present in both men and women but was greater in women. These findings should stimulate studies investigating the mechanisms underpinning the protection and could facilitate the design of a large-scale randomized control trial to confirm the possible additional benefit of the recombinant shingles vaccine...
I thought that was old news - there is research paper on this exact topic that used Wales as the source of the data from 2022 https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/trc2.12293 (the data used was from 2013 to 2020) 2013 was when the Shingles vaccine was given automatically to people so there is a very simple delineation date.
The data in that study is largely from the attenuated live virus vaccine. In this one: ..Here we used electronic health records (EHRs) and leveraged a natural experiment opportunity in the United States, created by the rapid uptake of the recombinant vaccine and the concurrent disuse of the live vaccine after October 2017...
On the Kaba case - I remember being somewhat surprised at the time that there was a murder charge based on media reports. Doesn't murder require pre-meditation? Wouldn't manslaughter have been a more obvious charge in this case?
Nope. Just an intention to cause serious harm, and I'd guess shooting someone suggests that.
In Scotland it's even looser - "wicked recklessness".
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
It sounds like the people responsible for allowing the immigration laws to be flouted on such a scale have a lot to answer for.
It's interesting looking at the Norwegian government wealth fund page with the latest numbers. It equates to around a quarter of a million pounds for each Norwegian (5.6 million people).
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
It sounds like the people responsible for allowing the immigration laws to be flouted on such a scale have a lot to answer for.
Glib, but unpersuasive. The US was, and is a nation of immigrants. The crew you favour claim to follow the principles of the founding fathers - and have spent the last four years frustrating any attempts for consensus immigration reform, so they can campaign on this.
This was more or less a certain outcome to anyone who followed the trial. And the jury took very little time over it.
A significant row is possible over the decision to prosecute in what was, in totality, a weak case once you looked at what both sides had to say.
Don't expect much serious analysis from anyone on Twitter.
For all the total fcukups at the Met over the years, that was very much not one of them having just been ‘treated’ to the video.
Serious questions to ask of the CPS for bringing the charges in the first place.
The car was known to have been involved in two armed incidents, and the armed police made themselves known in the usual manner before the suspect attempts to ram his way out of the roadblock. The policeman who took the shot would have been run over had he not done so.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4h There is obviously still time for the picture to change. But on current polling - both national and statewide - it's clear Trump is moving ahead. To the point I'm not sure it will be the close result people are expecting. At least not in the Electoral College.
In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.
If he has to worry about Florida then he’s going to be in big trouble in Pennsylvania and Nevada.
Anyone looking at early voting and thinking it tells you anything about the end result is delusional.
Equally I think anyone with a clue as to what the end result of the US election is going to be is also delusional - there isn't enough trustworthy data to give an accurate answer...
Indeed. There's an irony in that certain people, inevitably, are doing exactly the things they did when confidently calling a Hillary win in 2020 - but worse.
In that then, 538, the (imperfect but then longest standing) probability modeller gave Trump a roughly a 30% chance of winning. Which of course made his win in theory less likely - but very much non-zero. The polls only had to be out by a bit and in the wrong places. Yet some saw the vibes and called it as a certainty for Clinton without any caveat and looked quite silly.
Today, 538 has it 52-48 (ho ho) in favour of Trump. Because the most reliable polls in many of the key states are well within the margin of error and even are assuming are spot on something could clearly change even over 2 weeks or by some campaigning mistake.
Yet because Trump has had a small uptick in the polls and some reasonable headlines, the vibes are with him and so it's apparently all over. When if people are being honest and rigorous they'd have to say "I don't know" given the data available and possible ways and directions it could differ.
It's the kind of prediction you'd only be making with a gun to your head.
It's interesting looking at the Norwegian government wealth fund page with the latest numbers. It equates to around a quarter of a million pounds for each Norwegian (5.6 million people).
This was more or less a certain outcome to anyone who followed the trial. And the jury took very little time over it.
A significant row is possible over the decision to prosecute in what was, in totality, a weak case once you looked at what both sides had to say.
Don't expect much serious analysis from anyone on Twitter.
For all the total fcukups at the Met over the years, that was very much not one of them having just been ‘treated’ to the video.
Serious questions to ask of the CPS for bringing the charges in the first place.
The car was known to have been involved in two armed incidents, and the armed police made themselves known in the usual manner before the suspect attempts to ram his way out of the roadblock. The policeman who took the shot would have been run over had he not done so.
You forget Chris Kaba was just a humble aspiring architect....I mean it standard for such people to try and ram their way out of a police stop.
To add to the excitement, today there's a provincial election in New Brunswick, just 2 days after the election in British Columbia.
"Excitement" and "New Brunswick" do not belong in the same sentence.
Of all the people on this board who have been to New Brunswick, I contend that I have been for the shortest time. I was driving from Charlottetown PEI to Halifax NS almost exactly 19 years ago, and spent about 45 minutes in NB, including time the time it took to look back at the bridge and to buy a coffee and a snack. I can remember nothing at all about it. Nothing. I have a pretty good memory, and visiting a new province should normally trigger something, but all I have is a void.
You recall gazing at the bridge and buying food & drink . . . yet simultaneously claim to "remember nothing"?
Kindly make up your cotton-picking mind!
You make a fair point. In my defence I remember looking AWAY from NB. And I only remember consuming food and drink, not buying it. I was actually Google streetviewing to see if I could find a likely cafe where I'd stopped to BE in NB, but - nothing. I'll look out the photos from the trip later. Nowadays I'd have at least taken one pic to mark the occasion, but it was pre-smartphone so I wouldn't necessarily have had camera to hand.
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
It is worth remembering that the US immigration laws are also a bit of a mess.
Back in 2018, I was in the US on a visa for Genius Sports. We sold Genius Sports... the minute the transaction went through, I became an illegal alien, because my visa (tied to the company) was no longer valid.
My immigration attorney told me "In theory, you should head to the airport immediately, because your visa is no longer valid. So you can no longer be here in the US working. But don't worry, the law as written is ridiculous, and the INS largely ignores it so long as you don't take the piss. So long as you don't leave the US and attempt to return, and so long as we submit a new visa documentation within the next four to six weeks, they will be fine about it."
Still: it seems insane to me that legislation around E2 visas is such that you become illegal the moment a corporate transaction happens.
This was more or less a certain outcome to anyone who followed the trial. And the jury took very little time over it.
A significant row is possible over the decision to prosecute in what was, in totality, a weak case once you looked at what both sides had to say.
Don't expect much serious analysis from anyone on Twitter.
For all the total fcukups at the Met over the years, that was very much not one of them having just been ‘treated’ to the video.
Serious questions to ask of the CPS for bringing the charges in the first place.
The car was known to have been involved in two armed incidents, and the armed police made themselves known in the usual manner before the suspect attempts to ram his way out of the roadblock. The policeman who took the shot would have been run over had he not done so.
You forget Chris Kaba was just a humble aspiring architect....I mean it standard for such people to try and ram their way out of a police stop.
I’m pretty sure the UK is the only country where “Armed Police” is a specific phrase.
Certainly it’s one of very few, and something that makes you quite proud to be British.
Angela Rayner’s sweeping overhaul of workers’ rights could cost employers as much as £5bn a year, the Government’s own analysis has found.
According to an impact assessment published by the Department for Business and Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister’s shake-up will result in businesses raising prices, cutting back on salaries or reducing investment as they shoulder a £4.5bn bill.
"Small businesses will be the most affected by “five of the nine largest measures” impacting them disproportionately."
I think this is probably the most worrying bit. Large businesses have the scale and flexibility to better absorb such changes, for small businesses it is much harder. And why in the past normally small businesses have often been exempt from similar legislation.
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
It sounds like the people responsible for allowing the immigration laws to be flouted on such a scale have a lot to answer for.
Glib, but unpersuasive. The US was, and is a nation of immigrants. The crew you favour claim to follow the principles of the founding fathers - and have spent the last four years frustrating any attempts for consensus immigration reform, so they can campaign on this.
It's a nasty and probably economically highly disruptive policy even if implemented efficiently and fairly. But Trump and Vance might want to read about our own recent Windrush fiasco before embarking on this.
This was more or less a certain outcome to anyone who followed the trial. And the jury took very little time over it.
A significant row is possible over the decision to prosecute in what was, in totality, a weak case once you looked at what both sides had to say.
Don't expect much serious analysis from anyone on Twitter.
For all the total fcukups at the Met over the years, that was very much not one of them having just been ‘treated’ to the video.
Serious questions to ask of the CPS for bringing the charges in the first place.
The car was known to have been involved in two armed incidents, and the armed police made themselves known in the usual manner before the suspect attempts to ram his way out of the roadblock. The policeman who took the shot would have been run over had he not done so.
You forget Chris Kaba was just a humble aspiring architect....I mean it standard for such people to try and ram their way out of a police stop.
I’m pretty sure the UK is the only country where “Armed Police” is a specific phrase.
Certainly it’s one of very few, and something that makes you quite proud to be British.
I don't think the US Cops would have fired just a single shot as a last resort....
It's interesting looking at the Norwegian government wealth fund page with the latest numbers. It equates to around a quarter of a million pounds for each Norwegian (5.6 million people).
This was more or less a certain outcome to anyone who followed the trial. And the jury took very little time over it.
A significant row is possible over the decision to prosecute in what was, in totality, a weak case once you looked at what both sides had to say.
Don't expect much serious analysis from anyone on Twitter.
For all the total fcukups at the Met over the years, that was very much not one of them having just been ‘treated’ to the video.
Serious questions to ask of the CPS for bringing the charges in the first place.
The car was known to have been involved in two armed incidents, and the armed police made themselves known in the usual manner before the suspect attempts to ram his way out of the roadblock. The policeman who took the shot would have been run over had he not done so.
You forget Chris Kaba was just a humble aspiring architect....I mean it standard for such people to try and ram their way out of a police stop.
I’m pretty sure the UK is the only country where “Armed Police” is a specific phrase.
Certainly it’s one of very few, and something that makes you quite proud to be British.
I don't think the US Cops would have fired just a single shot as a last resort....
Err, no. As soon as that car started to move forward there would have been a dozen bullets in it from six different officers.
Anyone driving a car directly at two armed officers should really have a good idea about what might happen next…
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
It sounds like the people responsible for allowing the immigration laws to be flouted on such a scale have a lot to answer for.
Glib, but unpersuasive. The US was, and is a nation of immigrants. The crew you favour claim to follow the principles of the founding fathers - and have spent the last four years frustrating any attempts for consensus immigration reform, so they can campaign on this.
It's a nasty and probably economically highly disruptive policy even if implemented efficiently and fairly. But Trump and Vance might want to read about our own recent Windrush fiasco before embarking on this.
Economically disruptive doesn't begin to describe it. An attempt to actually implement deportations on this scale would tear US society apart.
The entire Windrush generation represents about 10% of the numbers Trump is talking of forcibly deporting, relatively speaking for the two populations.
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
This was more or less a certain outcome to anyone who followed the trial. And the jury took very little time over it.
A significant row is possible over the decision to prosecute in what was, in totality, a weak case once you looked at what both sides had to say.
Don't expect much serious analysis from anyone on Twitter.
For all the total fcukups at the Met over the years, that was very much not one of them having just been ‘treated’ to the video.
Serious questions to ask of the CPS for bringing the charges in the first place.
The car was known to have been involved in two armed incidents, and the armed police made themselves known in the usual manner before the suspect attempts to ram his way out of the roadblock. The policeman who took the shot would have been run over had he not done so.
You forget Chris Kaba was just a humble aspiring architect....I mean it standard for such people to try and ram their way out of a police stop.
I’m pretty sure the UK is the only country where “Armed Police” is a specific phrase.
Certainly it’s one of very few, and something that makes you quite proud to be British.
Britain is the only place with more than 6 million people where the police don't usually carry guns. I think Norway is the next most populous with 5.6 million, followed by New Zealand.
The Serious Fraud Office is investigating the construction of a hotel and conference centre owned by one of the UK’s biggest trade unions, the BBC can reveal. Unite the Union spent a total of £112m of its members’ money on the project in Birmingham. The building has since been valued at just £29m, suggesting £83m has been wasted.
Angela Rayner’s sweeping overhaul of workers’ rights could cost employers as much as £5bn a year, the Government’s own analysis has found.
According to an impact assessment published by the Department for Business and Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister’s shake-up will result in businesses raising prices, cutting back on salaries or reducing investment as they shoulder a £4.5bn bill.
"Small businesses will be the most affected by “five of the nine largest measures” impacting them disproportionately."
I think this is probably the most worrying bit. Large businesses have the scale and flexibility to better absorb such changes, for small businesses it is much harder. And why in the past normally small businesses have often been exempt from similar legislation.
Hmm. That is beginning to sound a bit to me like the predictions of apocalypse after the minimum wage came in 1997.
I remember strikingly similar figure to those ,being quoted by the CBI, which then mysteriously disappeared from national debate. Meanwhile, after decades, the Tories themselves raised the levels far beyond this.
English smacking ban being considered by government
The move comes following fresh calls for a ban by the Children's Commissioner for England Dame Rachel de Souza, after the death of 10-year-old Sara Sharif.
A court heard Sara was hooded, burned and beaten over a two-year period as her father, stepmother and uncle stand trial for her murder, which they deny.
I don't think if you are willing to hood, burn and beat your kid regularly over the course of 2 years a smacking ban is going to change your behaviour!
I hate this use of very extreme edge cases to piggy back changes to policy that are irrelevant to that.
Angela Rayner’s sweeping overhaul of workers’ rights could cost employers as much as £5bn a year, the Government’s own analysis has found.
According to an impact assessment published by the Department for Business and Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister’s shake-up will result in businesses raising prices, cutting back on salaries or reducing investment as they shoulder a £4.5bn bill.
"Small businesses will be the most affected by “five of the nine largest measures” impacting them disproportionately."
I think this is probably the most worrying bit. Large businesses have the scale and flexibility to better absorb such changes, for small businesses it is much harder. And why in the past normally small businesses have often been exempt from similar legislation.
Hmm. That is beginning to sound a bit to me like the predictions of apocalypse after the minimum wage came in 1997.
I remember strikingly similar figure to those ,being quoted by the CBI, which then mysteriously disappeared from national debate. Meanwhile, after decades, the Tories themselves raised the levels far beyond this.
And arguably the affect on business has been as predicted.
Angela Rayner’s sweeping overhaul of workers’ rights could cost employers as much as £5bn a year, the Government’s own analysis has found.
According to an impact assessment published by the Department for Business and Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister’s shake-up will result in businesses raising prices, cutting back on salaries or reducing investment as they shoulder a £4.5bn bill.
"Small businesses will be the most affected by “five of the nine largest measures” impacting them disproportionately."
I think this is probably the most worrying bit. Large businesses have the scale and flexibility to better absorb such changes, for small businesses it is much harder. And why in the past normally small businesses have often been exempt from similar legislation.
Hmm. That is beginning to sound a bit to me like the predictions of apocalypse after the minimum wage came in 1997.
I remember strikingly similar figure to those ,being quoted by the CBI, which then mysteriously disappeared from national debate. Meanwhile, after decades, the Tories themselves raised the levels far beyond this.
Except this report was mainly written based upon the Resolution Foundation work headed by a Labour MP, so quite the opposite of the CBI.
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
It sounds like the people responsible for allowing the immigration laws to be flouted on such a scale have a lot to answer for.
Glib, but unpersuasive. The US was, and is a nation of immigrants. The crew you favour claim to follow the principles of the founding fathers - and have spent the last four years frustrating any attempts for consensus immigration reform, so they can campaign on this.
It's a nasty and probably economically highly disruptive policy even if implemented efficiently and fairly. But Trump and Vance might want to read about our own recent Windrush fiasco before embarking on this.
Economically disruptive doesn't begin to describe it. An attempt to actually implement deportations on this scale would tear US society apart.
The entire Windrush generation represents about 10% of the numbers Trump is talking of forcibly deporting, relatively speaking for the two populations.
You dont think letting 10 million people in to the USA through ignoring border controls has already torn the USA apart then ?
Here is the other troubling part, besides the whole murder bad thing:-
Crawley was also found guilty of the attempted murder of a man in York in January, who he met on the gay dating app Grindr and also attacked with a hammer.
He was on bail for the killing of Mr Taylor at the time.
Why is 2-tier Keir letting killers out on bail while locking up conspiracy nuts?
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
Here is the other troubling part, besides the whole murder bad thing:-
Crawley was also found guilty of the attempted murder of a man in York in January, who he met on the gay dating app Grindr and also attacked with a hammer.
He was on bail for the killing of Mr Taylor at the time.
Why is 2-tier Keir letting killers out on bail while locking up conspiracy nuts?
If the Scottish numbers are anything to go by, 1 in 10 released a few weeks ago are already back in jail.
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
Angela Rayner’s sweeping overhaul of workers’ rights could cost employers as much as £5bn a year, the Government’s own analysis has found.
According to an impact assessment published by the Department for Business and Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister’s shake-up will result in businesses raising prices, cutting back on salaries or reducing investment as they shoulder a £4.5bn bill.
"Small businesses will be the most affected by “five of the nine largest measures” impacting them disproportionately."
I think this is probably the most worrying bit. Large businesses have the scale and flexibility to better absorb such changes, for small businesses it is much harder. And why in the past normally small businesses have often been exempt from similar legislation.
Hmm. That is beginning to sound a bit to me like the predictions of apocalypse after the minimum wage came in 1997.
I remember strikingly similar figure to those ,being quoted by the CBI, which then mysteriously disappeared from national debate. Meanwhile, after decades, the Tories themselves raised the levels far beyond this.
Except this report was mainly written based upon the Resolution Foundation headed by a Labour MP, so the opposite of the CBI.
Well, we shall see, but after the experience of the 1990's I'm fairly cynical about such claims, particularly if they're in that same and familiar 5 billion region.
I personally would doubt that this sort of legislation would have any large-scale effect. It might help to deal with disaffection and alienation with the political process and democracy from the bottom up, though, which is a hazard for both parties now.
Angela Rayner’s sweeping overhaul of workers’ rights could cost employers as much as £5bn a year, the Government’s own analysis has found.
According to an impact assessment published by the Department for Business and Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister’s shake-up will result in businesses raising prices, cutting back on salaries or reducing investment as they shoulder a £4.5bn bill.
"Small businesses will be the most affected by “five of the nine largest measures” impacting them disproportionately."
I think this is probably the most worrying bit. Large businesses have the scale and flexibility to better absorb such changes, for small businesses it is much harder. And why in the past normally small businesses have often been exempt from similar legislation.
Hmm. That is beginning to sound a bit to me like the predictions of apocalypse after the minimum wage came in 1997.
I remember strikingly similar figure to those ,being quoted by the CBI, which then mysteriously disappeared from national debate. Meanwhile, after decades, the Tories themselves raised the levels far beyond this.
Except this report was mainly written based upon the Resolution Foundation headed by a Labour MP, so the opposite of the CBI.
Well, we shall see, but after the experience of the 1990's I'm fairly cynical about such claims, particularly if they're in that same and familiar 5 billion region.
I personally would doubt that this sort of legislation would have any large-scale effect. It might help to deal with disaffection and alienation with the political process and democracy from the bottom up, though, which is a hazard for both parties now.
The claims of the minimum wage were overdone, but also the government actually took a very sensible approach and didn't set it that high in the end and farmed out increases to an independent body who continued not to go crazy on increases.
We have seen in the US how some states have done the opposite and cause them problems, just instantly jacking the minimum wage up to $15 or $20 an hour and it caused serious issues.
But this is the government own impact assessment done by a Labour MP from a think tank that is very pro workers rights. If you were cynical you might expect them to play down the size of the impact.
It's interesting looking at the Norwegian government wealth fund page with the latest numbers. It equates to around a quarter of a million pounds for each Norwegian (5.6 million people).
On the Kaba case - I remember being somewhat surprised at the time that there was a murder charge based on media reports. Doesn't murder require pre-meditation? Wouldn't manslaughter have been a more obvious charge in this case?
The officer could still have to face a gross misconduct hearing which could result in him being sacked.
I can't see it. The jury believed his explanation, so why shouldn't that be it?
Politics.
The Kaba stuff will imo be pretty much a mirror image of the Isobel Oakeshott horseshitcommentary on the Lynch case, but from the Left not the Right.
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
Here is the other troubling part, besides the whole murder bad thing:-
Crawley was also found guilty of the attempted murder of a man in York in January, who he met on the gay dating app Grindr and also attacked with a hammer.
He was on bail for the killing of Mr Taylor at the time.
Why is 2-tier Keir letting killers out on bail while locking up conspiracy nuts?
The second incident was before they’d found the body from the first, so he’d not yet been charged with the murder.
But yes, a difficult case politically that the police and CPS let a potential serial killer out on bail.
It's interesting looking at the Norwegian government wealth fund page with the latest numbers. It equates to around a quarter of a million pounds for each Norwegian (5.6 million people).
This was more or less a certain outcome to anyone who followed the trial. And the jury took very little time over it.
A significant row is possible over the decision to prosecute in what was, in totality, a weak case once you looked at what both sides had to say.
Don't expect much serious analysis from anyone on Twitter.
For all the total fcukups at the Met over the years, that was very much not one of them having just been ‘treated’ to the video.
Serious questions to ask of the CPS for bringing the charges in the first place.
The car was known to have been involved in two armed incidents, and the armed police made themselves known in the usual manner before the suspect attempts to ram his way out of the roadblock. The policeman who took the shot would have been run over had he not done so.
You forget Chris Kaba was just a humble aspiring architect....I mean it standard for such people to try and ram their way out of a police stop.
I’m pretty sure the UK is the only country where “Armed Police” is a specific phrase.
Certainly it’s one of very few, and something that makes you quite proud to be British.
I don't think the US Cops would have fired just a single shot as a last resort....
Err, no. As soon as that car started to move forward there would have been a dozen bullets in it from six different officers.
Anyone driving a car directly at two armed officers should really have a good idea about what might happen next…
Isn't that what happened immediately prior to the Rodney King episode?
Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.
I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.
She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.
I don't think she knows what she is doing.
I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.
To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
What's that, 1 in 50 of the adult non-retired population? No way is it as high as that.
I have not read the article. Are they looking at the equity part of peoples properties?
No. That's pension pots.
The tax-free lump sum always struck me as anomalous and Uncle Sam agrees because any Usonian retiring in the UK is expected to declare it on their US tax return and shell out to the IRS as if it were income. But just because I think it's anomalous doesn't mean I wouldn't resent losing it.
I think the point is that if you have paid into the scheme over x years expecting the tax free lump sum, then rightly you expect to get it.
Change it moving forward - fine. But whats done ought to be done.
With people not buying houses until their forties and fifties, the tax free lump sum will be increasingly important for paying off mortgages before retiring.
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
I am very much of the belief that attacks on politicians should be seen as a more serious offence. I said the same when Corbyn got attacked and they got jailed.....
Comments
Valid votes counted = 1,487,484 (51.7% turnout)
2,215 of 2,219 processed (99.8%)
Q - Do you support amending the Constitution with a view to the accession of the Republic of Moldova to the European Union?
Da
50.42% (749,950)
Nu
49.58% (737,534)
source Central Electoral Commission, Republic of Moldova
https://pv.cec.md/cec-template-referendum-results.html
SSI - Appears that what's putting the Yes side in the lead, is strong support from voters in Chișinău, the capital (23.4% of national vote) and where Da = 56.0%
I met a charming Greek-American and Irish-American Trumpy couple in Greece, as I mentioned a few weeks back.
Both softly-spoken, nice anf reasonably educated, if a bit bourgeois, engineers, who
thought they had to save the world with voting for Trump.
Was told today that Paul Weiss has just hired 6 partners for a minimum guarantee between them of £108 million. Admittedly over 5 years, but still!
Dunedin airport in New Zealand says passengers can keep fonder farewells to the car park"
https://www.thetimes.com/world/australasia/article/short-but-sweet-airport-sets-three-minute-time-limit-on-hugs-drtdcr579
Aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth departs Portsmouth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6w1b9RpynA
"Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧
@TiceRichard
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/1848320885754630155
Edward Lucas in Times (canvassing on the street in PA).
Change it moving forward - fine. But whats done ought to be done.
Talk about yer Wight Privlege!
It's hard to combat this combination, but the Democrats can do more. Harris can at timrs actually be.a genuinely magnetic personality, on her best days that I've seen, during the campaign.
If my reaction to the verdict is Community Restorative Shopping, is getting a friend to help me carry a large TV through the shattered window at Rucher Sounds
- Authentic?
- Cheating?
- Not The Thing?
AND for whom are you casting your vote?
Futher note that there is yet another Great White North provincial general election in Saskatchewan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_New_Brunswick_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Saskatchewan_general_election
A significant row is possible over the decision to prosecute in what was, in totality, a weak case once you looked at what both sides had to say.
Don't expect much serious analysis from anyone on Twitter.
I can remember nothing at all about it. Nothing. I have a pretty good memory, and visiting a new province should normally trigger something, but all I have is a void.
. . . . Progressive Conservative Leader Blaine Higgs is hoping to win a third term in office, which would make him the first premier to pull that off since Liberal Frank McKenna's victory in 1995.
Higgs has promised to continue the same approach to governing he has used for the last six years, which has led to six consecutive budget surpluses. He made only one major promise during the campaign: a two-point reduction to the 15-per-cent harmonized sales tax rate, phased in over the next two years.
Liberal Leader Susan Holt hopes to lead her party back to power after six years on the opposition benches. She built her campaign around a commitment to address problems in the health-care system and help New Brunswickers with the high cost of living.
And the Green Party, seemingly entrenched as the province's third party on the left of the political spectrum, aims to re-elect its three MLAs who first won in 2018 and secured new terms in 2020. The NDP, the People's Alliance and the Libertarian parties also have candidates on the ballot in some ridings.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/election-day-in-new-brunswick-1.7356022
Kindly make up your cotton-picking mind!
Obviously.
The same kind of senior officer, who, when a terrorist was stabbing a policeman to death in front of them, heroically locked the doors on his chauffeur driven car. Said senior police officer justified this by saying he wasn’t wearing his body armour. Said senior police officer used to reprimand police officers for not wearing their body armour in police station offices…
When he retired, a little while later, an angry email was sent out to officers about the lack of enthusiasm at his goodbye party….
A police marksman who shot dead a gangster eight years ago will face a gross misconduct hearing “at the earliest opportunity”, Scotland Yard has confirmed.
The Metropolitan Police firearms officer, known only as W80, could be sacked over the incident, despite being cleared of criminal wrongdoing.
In December 2015, W80 shot 28-year-old Jermaine Baker during a police operation as he was preparing to spring two prisoners from a prison van near Wood Green Crown Court in north London.
In 2017, prosecutors concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the officer.
A public inquiry in July 2022 found that Baker had been “lawfully killed” but said that police made numerous failures in planning and carrying out the operation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/20/met-police-officer-shot-prison-break-gangster-misconduct/
In this one:
..Here we used electronic health records (EHRs) and leveraged a natural experiment opportunity in the United States, created by the rapid uptake of the recombinant vaccine and the concurrent disuse of the live vaccine after October 2017...
But yes, a very similar conclusion.
In Scotland it's even looser - "wicked recklessness".
And an altered America
https://snyder.substack.com/p/twelve-million-deportations
As an American, and as a historian who writes about forced population movements, I believe that we are not taking the Trump-Vance deportation plan seriously enough.
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
During the trial at the Old Bailey, the court heard Mr Kaba was due to be a father.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c17lk592ygdo
But forget to remind us,
Four men have appeared at the Old Bailey accused of plotting a murder with Chris Kaba...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65352683
https://www.nbim.no
The US was, and is a nation of immigrants. The crew you favour claim to follow the principles of the founding fathers - and have spent the last four years frustrating any attempts for consensus immigration reform, so they can campaign on this.
Serious questions to ask of the CPS for bringing the charges in the first place.
The car was known to have been involved in two armed incidents, and the armed police made themselves known in the usual manner before the suspect attempts to ram his way out of the roadblock. The policeman who took the shot would have been run over had he not done so.
In that then, 538, the (imperfect but then longest standing) probability modeller gave Trump a roughly a 30% chance of winning. Which of course made his win in theory less likely - but very much non-zero. The polls only had to be out by a bit and in the wrong places. Yet some saw the vibes and called it as a certainty for Clinton without any caveat and looked quite silly.
Today, 538 has it 52-48 (ho ho) in favour of Trump. Because the most reliable polls in many of the key states are well within the margin of error and even are assuming are spot on something could clearly change even over 2 weeks or by some campaigning mistake.
Yet because Trump has had a small uptick in the polls and some reasonable headlines, the vibes are with him and so it's apparently all over. When if people are being honest and rigorous they'd have to say "I don't know" given the data available and possible ways and directions it could differ.
It's the kind of prediction you'd only be making with a gun to your head.
I'll look out the photos from the trip later. Nowadays I'd have at least taken one pic to mark the occasion, but it was pre-smartphone so I wouldn't necessarily have had camera to hand.
Back in 2018, I was in the US on a visa for Genius Sports. We sold Genius Sports... the minute the transaction went through, I became an illegal alien, because my visa (tied to the company) was no longer valid.
My immigration attorney told me "In theory, you should head to the airport immediately, because your visa is no longer valid. So you can no longer be here in the US working. But don't worry, the law as written is ridiculous, and the INS largely ignores it so long as you don't take the piss. So long as you don't leave the US and attempt to return, and so long as we submit a new visa documentation within the next four to six weeks, they will be fine about it."
Still: it seems insane to me that legislation around E2 visas is such that you become illegal the moment a corporate transaction happens.
Certainly it’s one of very few, and something that makes you quite proud to be British.
According to an impact assessment published by the Department for Business and Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister’s shake-up will result in businesses raising prices, cutting back on salaries or reducing investment as they shoulder a £4.5bn bill.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/21/rayner-workers-rights-overhaul-cost-employers-5bn-year/
"Small businesses will be the most affected by “five of the nine largest measures” impacting them disproportionately."
I think this is probably the most worrying bit. Large businesses have the scale and flexibility to better absorb such changes, for small businesses it is much harder. And why in the past normally small businesses have often been exempt from similar legislation.
the sun always shines
on Norway.
Anyone driving a car directly at two armed officers should really have a good idea about what might happen next…
An attempt to actually implement deportations on this scale would tear US society apart.
The entire Windrush generation represents about 10% of the numbers Trump is talking of forcibly deporting, relatively speaking for the two populations.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5z54236wgo
I remember strikingly similar figure to those ,being quoted by the CBI, which then mysteriously disappeared from national debate. Meanwhile, after decades, the Tories themselves raised the levels far beyond this.
The move comes following fresh calls for a ban by the Children's Commissioner for England Dame Rachel de Souza, after the death of 10-year-old Sara Sharif.
A court heard Sara was hooded, burned and beaten over a two-year period as her father, stepmother and uncle stand trial for her murder, which they deny.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr4x4lqv4d0o
I don't think if you are willing to hood, burn and beat your kid regularly over the course of 2 years a smacking ban is going to change your behaviour!
I hate this use of very extreme edge cases to piggy back changes to policy that are irrelevant to that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dy86l8x86o
Here is the other troubling part, besides the whole murder bad thing:-
Crawley was also found guilty of the attempted murder of a man in York in January, who he met on the gay dating app Grindr and also attacked with a hammer.
He was on bail for the killing of Mr Taylor at the time.
Why is 2-tier Keir letting killers out on bail while locking up conspiracy nuts?
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
Woman who milkshaked Farage gets what ?
Rachel Reeves was paid for audio book recordings
Presumably she must have been reading her own book? Who else would pay for that voice?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nigel-farage-campaign-bus-attack-josh-greally-court-b1178806.html
I personally would doubt that this sort of legislation would have any large-scale effect. It might help to deal with disaffection and alienation with the political process and democracy from the bottom up, though, which is a hazard for both parties now.
We have seen in the US how some states have done the opposite and cause them problems, just instantly jacking the minimum wage up to $15 or $20 an hour and it caused serious issues.
But this is the government own impact assessment done by a Labour MP from a think tank that is very pro workers rights. If you were cynical you might expect them to play down the size of the impact.
"let's invest the proceeds rather than blowing it on mass unemployment"
We ...
The Kaba stuff will imo be pretty much a mirror image of the Isobel Oakeshott horseshit commentary on the Lynch case, but from the Left not the Right.
Golenkov was reportedly responsible for the Amstor shopping center and Dnipro Sobornyi District apartment attacks, killing 68 civilians.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1848271514111459467
But yes, a difficult case politically that the police and CPS let a potential serial killer out on bail.
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cvgwgrld8v2o
Had no intention of stopping, nearly ran over police officers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly7kyv2wnvo
Starmer shows his political tin ear by appointing Gauke rather than any of the hundreds of Labour MPs angling for promotion.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/25/brexit-supporter-egged-jeremy-corbyn-labour-admits-assault-charge